The Political Thread

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I agree but at least he did the correct thing and stuck by it, even when people told him not to!

[MercZ]

It was interesting to see the UK do that. I could never see this happen in the US Congress in its current composition though, it's been tough enough getting it through state legislatures and ballot measures. Last time they touched at the federal level, DOMA came out of it.

[Stan]

Brilliant news isn't it and it only took a Conservative leader to get the ball rolling

It was pressure from Liberal party coalition partners which pushed the issue up the agenda. This is the kind of thing only the Tories can get away with while in power - the New Labour Project's cowed terror of negative headlines from the Daily Mail meant they could never take something like this on, while Dave can rely on them reverting to type and falling into line when it comes to the next election.

Ditto regarding cutting the budgets of the military and the police - soft-on-crime Blair and chums would have been slaughtered for implementing the coalition's cutbacks in those areas, but the perception of the Conservatives as being the party of the establishment and law and order means they're regarded as necessary economies, rather than driven by ideology or weakness.

It's a corollary of the rule that means the ruling classes have to wait until their red party are in power before they can get away with embedding free market principles in the daily operation of the health and social welfare services. The left and liberal-leaning sections of the press would be up in arms if Dave & Co tried to introduce similar (ahem!) reforms or -as you point out - start a series of illegal and ruinous wars for no good reason and to no real effect.

I agree with your general left/right cover point allowing each gang of crooks to get away with certain policies the other couldn't but I don't think this has anything to do with the Lib Dems. Why would Dave destroy his chances at the next election for a bunch of petulant children who knifed him in the back over boundary changes?

I'd suggest the establishment left should be giving him credit on this one but I think most of them know this wasn't done on a matter of principal. For some bizarre reason he appears to have thought it would help him politically. Not very smart for a rich boy.

[vzzbux]

I can't believe the swathe of hatred towards the verdict. Or is that just the media focusing on the negatives again. 
Damned if you do etc.





V

[Frank]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Lib Dems. Why would Dave destroy his chances at the next election for a bunch of petulant children who knifed him in the back over boundary changes?

It's all ... er, politics:

"Liberal Democrats today overwhelmingly backed moves to allow same-sex and mixed-sex couples to choose whether they wish to have a marriage or a civil partnership and to allow gay couples to have a church wedding. Evan Harris, the former MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said the motion would "test" the Conservatives' commitment to equality and would strengthen the hand of Lib Dem equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, in pressing for a change in the law.

Harris told delegates at the party's annual conference in Liverpool that the party should use the fact that it was part of the coalition government to "seize the moment to push the agenda forward on full equality"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/21/liberal-democrats-same-sex-marriage

[Eric Plumrose]

Bloody Christ, over ten posts and no Beaky rearing up from his self-imposed riddance to register his disgust?

[Stan]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Lib Dems. Why would Dave destroy his chances at the next election for a bunch of petulant children who knifed him in the back over boundary changes?

It's all ... er, politics:

"Liberal Democrats today overwhelmingly backed moves to allow same-sex and mixed-sex couples to choose whether they wish to have a marriage or a civil partnership and to allow gay couples to have a church wedding. Evan Harris, the former MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said the motion would "test" the Conservatives' commitment to equality and would strengthen the hand of Lib Dem equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, in pressing for a change in the law.

Harris told delegates at the party's annual conference in Liverpool that the party should use the fact that it was part of the coalition government to "seize the moment to push the agenda forward on full equality"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/21/liberal-democrats-same-sex-marriage

My post wasn't very clear in hindsight. I don't deny the Lib Dems were pushing for it. They're the one party you'd expect to do so. I just don't think Dave was forced into this position.

Though I will admit it's all very bizarre, so who knows really? There must be a good reason Dave slashed his own throat this way but I can't fathom what it is.

[Robert Frazer]

You know, Conservatives introduced to politics the first non-Christian PM (D'Israeli*), the first non-British PM (Law), the first unmarried-and-maybe-gay PM (Heath) and the first female PM (Thatcher) - indeed, the very first female MP to sit in the Commons (Viscountess Astor) was a Tory, as was the first Jewish MP (Sir Lopes).

Labour did get the first Muslim MP (Sarwar) - eventually, in 1997 - but your Bingo card is looking awfully bare in comparison.

*Yeah, he converted, but don't imagine that the stigmas magically evaporated - and he succeeded anyway.

[Stan]

They might also give us our first black PM if the last month is anything to go by.

Probably the smartest move they could make right now. Unless he hates gays or something.

[TordelBack]

Bloody Christ, over ten posts and no Beaky rearing up from his self-imposed riddance to register his disgust?

Too busy planning his big day.

[Mikey]

- indeed, the very first female MP to sit in the Commons (Viscountess Astor) was a Tory,

And the first female MP elected to the British Parliament, Constance Markievicz, was in Sinn Fein. That's politics!

M. 

[mygrimmbrother]

Bloody Christ, over ten posts and no Beaky rearing up from his self-imposed riddance to register his disgust?

Too busy planning his big day.

[Ancient Otter]

the first unmarried-and-maybe-gay

I like the way they got that demographic covered.

[Frank]

I don't deny the Lib Dems were pushing for it. They're the one party you'd expect to do so. I just don't think Dave was forced into this position. Though I will admit it's all very bizarre, so who knows really? There must be a good reason Dave slashed his own throat this way but I can't fathom what it is.

Aye and No. Dave's been making speeches for the last five years which demonstrated that he was in favour of this and didn't mind pissing off the minority of the country and his party who feel strongly about this (non) issue. The 50/50 split in the parliamentary Conservative party vote in the free vote over this bill isn't representative of the strength of felling in the UK as a whole, where most folk couldn't give a toss one way or the other and where a defacto form of gay marriage already exists in everything but name.

Those rebelling Tory MPs knew they could afford to look like they were taking a principled stand to the vocal minority of their constituents who were making phone calls and organising campaigns, safe in the knowledge that the vote would always go the way their party's leadership intended. Dave hands an olive branch to his coalition partners, so they can go back to their party faithful and say look what we made the Tories do! (even though Dave didn't mind doing it at all), allowing them to save a little face as they go along with policies which are antithetical to their core principles.

Meanwhile, all the pictures of Dave on my telly for the last few days have been of him delivering a Thatcher-like "No-No-No" outside the EU building, telling the media that he's going to make Johnny Foreigner acquiesce to British demands that they adopt an Osbourne-style austerity program. If there's one touchstone issue for UK Conservatives, it's Europe, and they love a bit of Frog/Kraut-bashing much more than they dislike the idea of marriage between homosexuals . The folk who were opposing that bill weren't really bigots, they were the kind of folk who obsess over the correct use and definition of words and who still can't get over the fact that Snickers, Starburst and Cif used to be called one thing and are now called another - even though it makes no real fucking difference to the way things are.

[Jim_Campbell]

The folk who were opposing that bill weren't really bigots, they were the kind of folk who obsess over the correct use and definition of words and who still can't get over the fact that Snickers, Starburst and Cif used to be called one thing and are now called another - even though it makes no real fucking difference to the way things are.

Yes, a good chunk of them really are bigots, and the argument about 'redefining' the word marriage not being within Parliament's remit is amongst the most spurious, weaselly pieces of shit the 'anti' campaign spewed out. Or are they forgetting that "voter" was once defined as "white, land-owning man" ...?

Cheers

Jim